Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[JusSumguy]

Because it's not science.

So you admit that the thinking process of scientists WHO WISH TO TALK ABOUT ID is stifled by the rest. Ostracized and put out to pasture. Even to the point of pulling already earned tenure. Just for mentioning it.

If they think it's not science, then by golly it ain't.

BTW, do you have any idea how similiar "The Origin of Species" and "Mein Kampf" in the original language are? Do you think I just pulled that out of thin air? (-:

Do you have any idea how many people were sterelized in this country because of the belief that they were INFERIOR FOR BREEDING? Did you know that this was brought on by The Origin of Species?

Okay.... It's funny again.

 

[JusSumguy]

Hey, you wanted the theory that used the deliberately vague term "Intelligent Designer". Dawkins is within his right to choose whichever one he wants - there's as much empirical evidence for any of them, God, FSM, aliens....

If you sell out, expect to be short changed.

He's the one selling out. ID was a no no to him. Now he seems to be relenting.

Don't tell me I know more about your fearless leader than you do. It can't be true. (-:


-

 

[Skaloop]

He's the one selling out. ID was a no no to him. Now he seems to be relenting.

Don't tell me I know more about your fearless leader than you do. It can't be true. (-:


-

You've been told that you are misrepresenting what Dawkins said. You've been shown how you are misrepresenting what Dawkins said.

Yet you still continue to misrepresent what Dawkins said. You really should stop that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

He's the one selling out. ID was a no no to him. Now he seems to be relenting.

Don't tell me I know more about your fearless leader than you do. It can't be true. (-:


-

You think he's a "fearless leader" of something, so apparently you know far less about him than we do.

 

[CoderHead]

So you admit that the thinking process of scientists WHO WISH TO TALK ABOUT ID is stifled by the rest.

I admit that the thinking process behind ID doesn't resemble science in any conceivable way. Those people's thinking process is not stifled. They can think whatever they want. They just can't teach it as science.

BTW, do you have any idea how similiar "The Origin of Species" and "Mein Kampf" in the original language are?

So, by showing a parallel between Hitler's personal struggle in Mein Kampf and the concept of selective breeding/survival of the fittest in Origin of the Species you're hoping to prove that...what? Darwin concluded that Jews, blacks, and people with mental or physical handicaps should be exterminated? Don't be stupid.

Do we have to point out parallels between the Bible and atrocious historical acts? No, it's counter-productive to the point of this thread.

Do you have any idea how many people were sterelized in this country because of the belief that they were INFERIOR FOR BREEDING?

Yes. Eugenics, which was not based off of Darwin's Origin of the Species. The concept goes way, way back to ancient Greece. We don't do that anymore. What's your point?

 

[sfs]

Are you suggesting that evolution is founded in science?

I know that when I'm studying evolution, I'm doing science.

What about all the other scientists that get blackballed for mentioning ID? Can't get funding. Can't even get a job.

Can't say that I've seen that to happen to anyone. If people make lousy arguments for ID and try to pass them off as science, they're likely to be treated as religiously inspired nitwits, but that comes with the territory when you're a religiously inspired nitwit.

It's an old boys, toe the party line, club. And you know this to be true.

Sorry, but I don't know that.

Yet THE EVIDENCE says that the numbers are just too big to be overcome by happenstance. THE EVIDENCE says that life could not have started spontaneously. Yet you still believe. Boy, talk about a faith based religion.

What does the origin of life have to do with evolution?

 

[BananaSlug]

I still can't understand why so many people don't realize that evolution does not equal atheism. Are these people messed up in the head? What will they be saying next?
Gravity=Atheism
Heliocentricity=Atheism

Evolution is nothing more that allele frequency change over generational time. Many alleles are connected with physical appearance. As these alleles change, so does the physical appearance. Most of my students are able to grasp this concept easily (the only ones who don't are the ones for whom evolution=atheism).

Is America really becoming that stupid? (BTW, "stupid" according to me is willfull ignorance.)

 

[JusSumguy]

What does the origin of life have to do with evolution?

Because it's the essence of this entire discussion. Evolutionists have been trying to leave the origin of life out of their little club because it's a roadblock to their need to die as sinners and not have to worry about a deity.

Darwins book--->The origin of life.

You've been told that you are misrepresenting what Dawkins said. You've been shown how you are misrepresenting what Dawkins said.

Yet you still continue to misrepresent what Dawkins said. You really should stop that.

No.... You've been told what Dawkins said.

Yes. Eugenics, which was not based off of Darwin's Origin of the Species. The concept goes way, way back to ancient Greece. We don't do that anymore. What's your point?

Yes it most definitely was. And the idiot lady who was in charge of sterilizing people using "The Origin of Life" as her reasoning, went on to found "Planned Parenthood." when she was outed by the doctors that she made sterilize them.

I couldn't care less about Dawkins if I tried! You're purposely misrepresenting something he said in an attempt to prove a misguided point, however, and I'm hoping to curb your ignorance.

Saw him say it with my own eyes. When he presented it he was hammered about his quotes from his book which state that there is no ID period.

Asked why he has changed his opinion.... Because the evidence seems to suggest that this thing couldn't happen on it's own. That there prolly was some form of ID.

Then he went on to talk about transpermia. It seems that an intelligent designer could not be our God. Why <---Spoiled brat.

So he's fallen to the point of a spoiled child refusing to see the reality of what he's done.

BTW... Even he can be forgiven.

Bwaaa

 

[brinny]

I know that when I'm studying evolution, I'm doing science.


Can't say that I've seen that to happen to anyone. If people make lousy arguments for ID and try to pass them off as science, they're likely to be treated as religiously inspired nitwits, but that comes with the territory when you're a religiously inspired nitwit.


Sorry, but I don't know that.


What does the origin of life have to do with evolution?

your last statement.....then what good is this theory of evolution based on Darwin's limited, antiquated theories and ideas? He apparently believed a cell was very simple. What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

 

[Nathan Poe]

your last statement.....then what good is this theory of evolution based on Darwin's limited, antiquated theories and ideas? He apparently believed a cell was very simple. What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

You believe a cell is more complex than several galaxies?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

your last statement.....then what good is this theory of evolution based on Darwin's limited, antiquated theories and ideas? He apparently believed a cell was very simple. What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

The Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin's time. This was already explained to you.

 

[CoderHead]

You believe a cell is more complex than several galaxies?

I believe she was conveying orders of magnitude over Darwin's limited understanding. And it's true, but it doesn't invalidate the theory as it stands today. What they don't understand is that we're not still suckling at Darwin's teat and that we've progressed substantially since his original observations.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe she was conveying orders of magnitude over Darwin's limited understanding. And it's true, but it doesn't invalidate the theory as it stands today. What they don't understand is that we're not still suckling at Darwin's teat and that we've progressed substantially since his original observations.

Fair enough -- too many of the misinformed think that Darwin invented evolution, when in reality, he only added the mechanism of natural selection -- which really doesn't matter regardless of how complex a cell is.

 

[brinny]

Because it's the essence of this entire discussion. Evolutionists have been trying to leave the origin of life out of their little club because it's a roadblock to their need to die as sinners and not have to worry about a deity.

Darwins book--->The origin of life.



No.... You've been told what Dawkins said.



Yes it most definitely was. And the idiot lady who was in charge of sterilizing people using "The Origin of Life" as her reasoning, went on to found "Planned Parenthood." when she was outed by the doctors that she made sterilize them.



Saw him say it with my own eyes. When he presented it he was hammered about his quotes from his book which state that there is no ID period.

Asked why he has changed his opinion.... Because the evidence seems to suggest that this thing couldn't happen on it's own. That there prolly was some form of ID.

Then he went on to talk about transpermia. It seems that an intelligent designer could not be our God. Why <---Spoiled brat.

So he's fallen to the point of a spoiled child refusing to see the reality of what he's done.

BTW... Even he can be forgiven.

Bwaaa

He is a spoiled brat...he nearly has temper tantrums when cornered with questions about his own statements earlier in his lucrative career and now must recant or change because it is so obvious he had no leg to stand on when he stated them from the gitgo.

He, unfortunately, is an antiquated, dust in the wind part of history and will sooner than he realizes be forgotten as an unfortunate embarrassment to those using him as any credible source.

lies cannot go on forever...they eventually become dust in the wind, like Darwin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0zSB2WEtwU&feature=related

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I still can't understand why so many people don't realize that evolution does not equal atheism. Are these people messed up in the head?

I think creationists need to believe this because the alternative (i.e. that modern scientists have things right and the ToE is valid) is completely unpalatable to them. So they invent reasons (like JusSumguy just did) about evolutionists denying a diety and so on and so forth.

It's complete nonense especially when one considers the fact that there are evolutionists of various faiths. But it really underscores just how bankrupt the entire creationist position is.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
your last statement.....then what good is this theory of evolution based on Darwin's limited, antiquated theories and ideas? He apparently believed a cell was very simple. What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

You believe a cell is more complex than several galaxies?

you believe it is not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

He is a spoiled brat...he nearly has temper tantrums when cornered with questions about his own statements earlier in his lucrative career and now must recant or change because it is so obvious he had no leg to stand on when he stated them from the gitgo.

He, unfortunately, is an antiquated, dust in the wind part of history and will sooner than he realizes be forgotten as an unfortunate embarrassment to those using him as any credible source.

lies cannot go on forever...they eventually become dust in the wind, like Darwin.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0zSB2WEtwU&feature=related

Isn't it interesting how creationism is more interested in smearing irrelvant people than presenting relevant facts?

I mean really, What does Dawkins have to do with anything?

 

[BananaSlug]

Evolution= allele frequency change over generational time.

No life------> No alleles-----> No evolution.

Evolution began once life appeared. The origin of life has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution

 

[TerranceL]

Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?

Yes. Did you have a point? Can you show that he thinks of Darwin the same way you think of god?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane ...." -- Richard Dawkins,

And?

What would your reaction be to someone who told you that the world was hollow and filled with the souls of aliens who escape thru volcanos?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The origin of life has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution

This isn't entirely true (there is some overlap), but I agree thata lot of the existing ToE is fine without a working theory of the origin of life. This continual reference back to the origin of life is just a red herring on the part of creationists.